What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767263 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767263?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767263?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10747874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767263 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767263?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767263?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10747874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767263 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. Ms Maturan – Abuid appeared for the landlord. Dispute concerning start date of tenancy.
The tenant states that it commenced around January 2021, and shortly after, an incident involving the neighbours occurred. The landlord, however, disputes this date and has produced a tenancy agreement signed by the parties, confirming the tenancy commenced on 11 June 2021. On the material produced I am satisfied that the tenancy commenced on 11 June 2021. Claim
The tenant alleges that between the commencement and the tenancy and their relocation to another property on 06 December 2023, the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to address antisocial behaviour and threats by their immediate neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord. The tenant claims that despite repeatedly notifying the landlord the interference continued.
The tenant states that in addition to the direct threats made against them, that the landlord had also failed to take action to protect vulnerable people living at the neighbouring property, causing the tenant stress and anxiety.
The tenant is seeking compensation of $70.000.00. This includes: -$180.00 for tyre replacement, -$40.00 for a hose, -$450.00 to replace a lawn mower, -$150.00 for doctors’ fees, -$100.00 for fuel costs, $2,000.00 to repair damaged door panels (motor vehicle), -Counselling costs of $4,000.00 relating to trauma associated with the interference.
The remaining balance is compensation represents a loss of amenity, namely compensation for not receiving reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy they had bargained for under the tenancy agreement. Property configuration
The tenant’s property at [Tenancy address suppressed] in a standalone house at the rear of a section that also contains two older style units near the roadside, constructed in the 1990’s. The tenant’s property was constructed in 2017. The neighbouring section has a similar layout. The property at the rear of the neighbouring section and adjacent to the tenant’s property is [Neighbouring address]. The tenant alleges that the tenant at [Neighbouring address], other occupants, and visitors are the source of the interference. The two properties approximately six metres apart, separated by a standard 1.8 metre wooden fence. Both properties have a veranda at the front, allowing each tenant to easily see and hear each other when outside, which is a common situation with “infill” housing. All the houses on each section are Kainga Ora tenancies.
The tenant is the sole occupant of [Tenancy address suppressed]. The property next door at [Neighbouring address] is tenanted by a single female. Other occupants of the property at [Neighbouring address] include the tenant’s partner at the time, teenage daughter, the daughter’s partner, and their baby. Tenant’s position
Between 11 January 2021 and 29 May 2023, the tenant claims to have made at least seven complaints to the landlord concerning the conduct of the neighbours or people visiting the neighbours’ address. These complaints included: -A sick puppy with a notifiable disease on the neighbouring property, -A naked male, believed to be the partner of one of the occupants of [Neighbouring address] seeking assistance to retrieve a vehicle, -Armed groups converging at the neighbour’s property for a fight, -Witnessing the neighbouring tenant assaulting her pregnant daughter and partner, -Gang affiliated individuals parked on the neighbour’s driveway smoking methamphetamine, -Observing the occupants of the neighbouring property produce and sell methamphetamine, -Observing stolen vehicles at the neighbour’s property, -General arguing between the occupants of the neighbouring property, -The partner of the neighbouring tenant’s daughter sending the tenant a picture with a nose around his neck in an alleged self-harm incident.
The tenant claims that on each occasion they called the landlords 0800 number and were either referred to their Case Manager, who was also the Case Manager for the neighbouring tenant or believed that if unavailable the call centre had sent an email message to the Case Manager for follow up. Despite reporting the incidents, the tenant states no follow up occurred, or no action was taken.
Other incidents occurring between 11 January 2021 and 29 May 2023, but not reported to the landlord, include: -The sick puppy dying and being buried in the back yard, but not before the neighbour had brought the puppy to the tenant to ask if was in fact dead, -Witnessing a hooded male climb the fence and burgle the neighbour’s property, -The tenant being offered stolen property by a visitor to the neighbour’s property.
On 03 April 2023, the tenant states that they had witnessed Kainga Ora staff visited the neighbour’s property and removed the neighbouring tenant’s daughters’ partner and take him to emergency accommodation. The tenant produced a video taken on their phone showing a member of Kainga Ora staff asking the tenant to stop filming the visit.
The tenant states the occupants of the neighbouring property would occasionally ask for rides in their vehicle, to which they agreed, having previously offered. The tenant states however that sometimes they had felt intimated and had felt unable to decline, recalling one occasion becoming unintentionally involved a shopping lift incident after giving the neighbours a ride to a nearby supermarket.
The tenant states that the neighbour’s property was not kept clean and tidy, leading to build-up of rubbish that attracted rats and other vermin. The tenant states that the occupants of the neighbouring property “abducted cats” and brought them to the property in the hope they may deal with the infestation, but that the cats were maltreated and eventually died. The tenant claims to have rescued dozens of cats and taken them to the SPCA.
On 06 June 2023, the tenant states that they allowed the neighbouring tenants daughters partner to charge his phone at their property. The tenant states they left the property and let the male take the phone charger. The tenant states that when they returned, they discovered that the male had attempted self-harm. though not at the tenant’s property. The phone charger was not returned. The tenant tried calling police but could not get through. The tenant stated that they called the landlord’s 0800 number and spoke with the Case Manager who said, “it was their [ the neighbours] stuff to sort out”.
Believing the neighbouring tenants daughters’ partner to be the victim of psychological abuse, on 08 June 2023, the tenant went to the landlord’s office seeking help. Later that day another Case Manager called the tenant and said that they would look into it. The tenant states that despite promising to do so nothing was done, and the anti-social behaviour continued.
The tenant states they are a recovering alcoholic, have been the victim of emotional and physical abuse including serious sexual trauma, have PTSD, suffer anxiety, and are hyper vigilant and sensitive.
On 12 June 2023, based on what the tenant had told them, the tenant’s ACC accredited councillor wrote to the landlord expressing their concerns including an incident in which a gang member had threatened the tenant pointing a knife at them.
The councillor concerned has attended and supported the tenant as previous hearings but was not at court today. The tenant states that ACC funding has recently ceased, and the counsellor is no longer able to attend in support.
The tenant states that on 16 June 2023, they were at the neighbouring property when the police brought the neighbouring tenant to their property. The tenant states it was either from prison, from questioning, or community work. The tenant states in front of the police the neighbouring tenant made threats to kill the tenant. Despite witnessing the threats, they state that the police took no action and simply advised the tenant to “stay out of the way.” Despite this being a serious matter, the tenant did not report this incident to the landlord.
The tenant states on or about 18 June 2023, a baby was born at the neighbouring property. The tenant believes that the mother of the child had not received adequate pre-natal support and the baby was born with deformities. The tenant states that an unknown male had visited the neighbouring property attempting to take the baby away. The tenant states upon enquiring what was happening the neighbouring tenant made further threats to kill. This incident was not reported to the landlord.
On 10 July 2023, the tenant states that the neighbouring tenant came onto the tenant’s property and smashed objects on the outside of the house and make threats to assault the tenant. The tenant states that the matter was reported to police and the landlord advised.
On 31 July 2023, the tenant states a female associate of the neighbouring tenant advised they intended taking over the neighbouring tenancy. The tenant stated that she advised the female that Kainga Ora tenancies could not be easily transferred. The tenant called and reported the matter to the Housing Support Manager. There is evidence that this matter was followed up by the landlord.
The tenant states that on 01 October 2023, they were the subject of a burglary, which they suspect involved the neighbours or associates. On 15 October 2023 and 22 November 2023, the tenant made several complaints about suspicious activity at the neighbouring property.
Between 01 August 2023 to early November 2023, the tenant and their ACC counsellors sent emails to the landlord expressing concerns that living next door to [Neighbouring address] was detrimental to the tenant’s health and wellbeing.
On 07 August 2023, there was a hui between representatives of the landlord, the tenant, and those supporting the tenant.
On or about 23 November 2023, a tenancy transfer was activated by the landlord and on 29 November 2023 the tenant was offered a another Kainga Ora property away from [City], which they accepted.
On 29 November 2023, there was an armed offenders call out to the neighbour’s property lasting around three hours at the end of which the tenant states “someone came out in a box”. The tenant took photographs of the incident. It is unclear whether the incident involved the neighbouring tenant or anyone at the property with their permission.
The tenant moved on or about 06 December 2023. The tenant has subsequently made complaints regarding the maintenance of the new property and intends making another application to the Tribunal. Landlords position
The landlord, like the tenant, has submitted a bundle of written documents and chronologies.
The landlord claims they have no record of any issues being raised by the tenant until 25 May 2023. On that date the tenant, reportedly called to reported arguing from next door but did not wish to file a complaint.
The landlord states that all calls to the 0800 number are logged. The tenant has also made an Official Information request, and if the Tribunal assumes that if the calls had been made, they would have been recorded and disclosed to the tenant when requested.
The landlord states that the first formal complaint was received on 08 June 2023, when the tenant visited their offices. Later that day, a Case Manager had called the tenant to discuss the matter. The landlord states that the Case Manager contacted police, who reported attending a domestic dispute at [Neighbouring address] on 11 June 2023.
The landlord states that following receipt of the trauma counsellor’s letter on 12 June 2023, a Housing Support Manager spoke with both the tenant and the counsellor. Both indicated that the tenant had received threatening text messages. The landlord asked to see the messages, but none could be provided.
The landlord states that the photographs taken by the tenant showing people visiting next door do not actually show them making any threats. The landlord also visited the tenant, but they were not home, and went next door to speak with the tenant, but neither the tenant nor the neighbours were home.
The landlord states while in the area the Housing Support Manager spoke to other neighbours who stated that the day before they had witnessed the tenants and [Tenancy address suppressed] and [Neighbouring address] arguing with each other from their respective verandas, and that police had been involved. The neighbours advised the incidents did not occur frequently, not gang related, coincided with benefit pay day, and involved both tenants, not just one. Another neighbour suggesting that anti-social behaviour might be coming from another property in the street, not [Neighbouring address].
Due to the lack of corroborating evidence regarding any threats made against the tenant, the landlord felt unable to issue any breach or notices for anti-social behaviour notices.
The landlord accepts that a Housing Support Manager had visited [Neighbouring address] and noted the tenant filming next door. Concerned by this, the Housing Support Manager had asked the tenant to cease.
On 14 June 2023, a Kainga Ora Housing Support Manager conducted a welfare check on the tenant, who expressed dissatisfaction with both the police and landlord.
On 16 June 2023, the landlord received a call from the tenant’s trauma counsellor expressing their concern that the situation had not been appropriately addressed. The counsellor claimed the occupants at [Neighbouring address] had gang affiliations, used illicit substances, dealt in stolen property, and had made threats against the tenant.
The trauma counsellor advised that because of the tenant’s PSTD, that no male Housing Support Manager should contact the tenant, and a female Case Manager should be appointed.
A Senior Housing Support Manager called the tenant to discuss these concerns.
The landlord states that two Housing Support Managers visited the neighbouring tenant who stated that their relationship with the tenant at [Neighbouring address] had deteriorated after the incident involving the phone charger. That the tenant had been recording all of their activities and reporting them to various agencies. The landlord states that the tenant at [Neighbouring address] was reminded of their obligations under the agreement. The landlord advised the tenant at [Neighbouring address] that they would then contact Police. On 19 June 2023, a Housing Support Manager contacted Police and was informed that they had attended incidents at [Neighbouring address] on 07 June 2023, 11 June 2023, and 14 June 2023, but had no record of the incident of 16 June 2023. Police reportedly advised that “except for providing public relations to both parties, no further action was taken.”
On 26 June 2023, a Housing Support Manager conducted an observation of both properties and noted nothing unusual.
On 27 June 2023, another Housing Support Manager conducted an observation and noted nothing out of the ordinary.
On 28 June 2023, another Housing Support Manager conducted an observation and did not observe anything unusual. While there, they were approached by another neighbour who mentioned that the street was generally peaceful except for the occasional arguments between [Tenancy address suppressed] and [Neighbouring address], typically on benefit days or when intoxicated. A neighbour stated they had witnessed the occupant at [Tenancy address suppressed] yelling at [Neighbouring address] and felt that the occupant at [Neighbouring address] may have mental health issues. Neighbour also stated that [Neighbouring address] had frequent visitors which appeared to aggravate the tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed] who then “kicked off”.
On 07 July 2023, the landlord received an email from the tenant’s ACC representative, who had been asked to intervene by the trauma councillor. The representative stated that ACC would request a transfer through MSD, but due to potential delays, invited the landlord to consider facilitating a transfer themselves.
The landlord states that when advised of the alleged incident on 10 July 2023 that they made several attempts to contact the tenant by phone and had visited the property but were unsuccessful.
On 11 July 2023, the landlord received a call from the ACC representative. The landlord expressed concern that the tenant’s persistent photographing and filming the occupants at [Neighbouring address] was worsening the situation, and having investigated were of the view that if both occupants of [Tenancy address suppressed] and [Neighbouring address] kept to themselves, there would be no immediate risk to either party.
On 24 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the tenant at [Neighbouring address] stating that they had received complaints of ongoing domestic disputes between the tenant’s daughter and partner, and that the tenant was exceeding the maximum amount of people allowed at the property (the tenant and teenage daughter). The landlord warned the tenant that failure to address these issues could lead to termination of the tenancy.
On 07 August 2023, there was a meeting between senior members of the landlord’s housing support team, the tenant, and those assisting the tenant. The tenant of [Neighbouring address] does not appear to have been invited. The minutes of the meeting have been produced. One of the housing support team advised the attendees that the neighbouring tenant had expressed that they wanted to help the tenant and had asked that this be shared with the tenant’s support people. The minutes show that the tenant then left the meeting before it was concluded. The transfer to another property was discussed including in order to increase the tenant’s priority level that their rating level had been raised. Overall, the minutes suggest that both the landlord and tenant shared their perspectives.
On 31 October 2023, a Housing Support Manager sent an email to the tenant in response to series of their emails. In the email the Manager states: “[Tenant], as said many times previously, I understand that a lot of your fear and anxiety steams from your own personal experiences, you expressed to [ACC representative] and I that “ it isn’t the neighbours” and you have a lot of things you need to work through to get your own mental health right. We would like to support you however we can with this.” In the email the manager goes on to state “What I can tell you is that we are still working on a transfer for you and will continue to do so. Our wait list at the moment is roughly 700 (which changes daily), the property rating of an individual is what gets them moved. We are currently moving anyone with a rating of 20A, they are our most vulnerable and homeless clients”.
In the email the Housing Support Manager also states that priority is given to those who do not already have a home.
The landlord states that the transfer process was initiated on 21 November 2023, and an alternate property was offered to the tenant on 29 November 2023. The tenant’s new tenancy commenced on 06 December 2023.
On 13 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the tenant at [Neighbouring address] regarding the armed offender’s callout. Although it is unclear whether the person the subject of the armed offenders call out was residing or in fact visiting at the property with the tenant’s permission, the landlord again, as they had done so on 24 July 2023, warned the tenant.
The landlord accepts that it is likely that the tenant has been unreasonably disturbed by some of the events occurring at [Neighbouring address]. The landlord submits that they have investigated the matters raised by the tenant and have taken all reasonable steps to address the tenant’s complaints. Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that more likely than not the landlord is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
Under section 40(2)(c) of the Act, a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
Under section 45 (1)(e) of the Act, a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
In Hine v Housing New Zealand Corporation, Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 09/3053/AK, 8 September 2009 the Tribunal stated at paragraph [4]: Under this section the Tribunal has to balance the competing rights of at least two tenants. The Tribunal must consider two sub–issues: first, whether there has been an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant, and secondly, whether the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that there has been no such interference to the tenant.
The learned authors of Grinlinton: Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice (4th ed) state: “In both elements the objective reasonableness test is the measure of compliance”. Each case will be determined on the facts.
In Hine v Housing New Zealand, the Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord had been aware of at least 6 incidents over an 8 month period which amounted to an interference with the tenants expectation for reasonable peace, comfort and privacy which included excessive noise, throwing objects at the tenant’s property, soiling of the tenant’s clothes on a clothesline and threats of physical violence against the tenant and her children. The landlord claimed that they had served the offending tenant with breach notices although they had not been produced in evidence. The landlord stated that they had attempted to relocate the tenant, but they had not accepted any of the alternative properties offered. The Tribunal was of the view that while the tenant had asked for a transfer, it was the only option the tenant saw to be free of intimidation and interference from the neighbour. The landlord did not seek to terminate the offending tenant’s tenancy stating they felt that an application to the Tribunal would have been successful without oral testimony from the tenant, which the tenant was reluctant to give in person for threat of reprisal. The Tribunal disagreed stating that ample evidence had been produced to support an application for termination. The Tribunal also considered that the landlord had not turned their minds to the other possible legal remedies such as serving a 90-day notice or seeking termination of the offending neighbour’s tenancy on the basis that they had clearly breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment under section 40(2)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the landlord had failed in its obligation to take all reasonable steps.
In Housing New Zealand v Morley DC Porirua CIV 2003–091–000588, 21 January 2004, the tenant had declined an offer to be relocated on the basis that they were not the source of the interference. The landlord did not take any steps to relocate the offending tenant, consider terminating the offending tenant’s tenancy or refer the matter to the Tribunal for earlier resolution. The Tribunal found that in failing to consider the option of moving the offending tenant, the landlord had failed to take all reasonable steps.
In Morley, Counsel for the landlord argued that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the landlord’s statutory responsibility to provide affordable housing to vulnerable people, that the offending tenant was a vulnerable person, had been in the property for two years, roughly the same time as the tenant , and apart from incidents involving the tenant had not interfered with any other of the landlord’s tenants, and if evicted would be unable to participate in the private sector rental market.
The Court pointed out that while the landlord had a social responsibility, section 45(1)(e) of Act clearly defined the landlord’s obligations to its tenants, stating at paragraph [10]: If the Corporation is pursuing ones imperative, at the expense of another, that will not ipso facto discharge the Corporation from an obligation to compensate any party who suffers from the choice of the imperative.
Pursuant to section 45(1)(e) of that Act a landlord has a legal obligation to ensure a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the property. In addition to any mediation or dispute resolution a landlord must also consider the provisions in the Act that can be used by a landlord to protect the rights of their tenants. Conclusion
The tenant has played to the Tribunal an example of an exchange between themselves, and the other tenant recorded on their cellphone from 01 August 2023. In the recording, both parties are equally engaged in a verbal altercation that can be described as a slanging match, with insults exchanged from both sides. The recording appears consistent with the comments made by other neighbours to the landlord on 28 June 2023, concerning the conduct of both the tenant and the neighbour.
The tenant has stated that, due to their trauma history, they are extremely sensitive to their surroundings and the actions of others. The tenant appears to be genuinely concerned for the plight of others. The evidence suggests that the tenant became closely acquainted with the neighbours’ personal circumstances, offering support, and was likely taken advantage of on some occasions. From the tenant’s perspective, there is no doubt that they viewed the neighbour’s lifestyle as chaotic and the occupants of the property vulnerable. This caused the tenant stress and anxiety.
The tenant claims that neighbourly relations were reasonably good until the neighbour discovered that, while helping and appearing to be supportive, they were also regularly reporting matters to the landlord, police, and other agencies. It is understandable that the relationship between the parties soured thereafter. I am satisfied that following the breakdown that more likely than not the neighbouring tenant felt aggrieved and when provoked likely expressed this to the tenant.
Taking a step back and objectively assessing all of the evidence, on the basis that tenants are generally responsible for the actions of those at the property with their permission, I am satisfied that there were likely some occasions were the neighbour, by omission, rather than overt action, has permitted visitors to the property to interfere with the tenant’s peace. Additionally, on the evidence, there appears to be occasions when arguably the tenant themselves has interfered with their neighbour’s peace comfort and privacy by either covertly or overtly filming them.
I am satisfied that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy have not been interfered with.
Some of the matters raised by the tenant, for example, the self-harm incident by one of the occupants of the neighbouring property, who was not a tenant or nor a recognised occupant, is not a matter concerning the landlord. Nor is the fact that one of the occupants may have had child without adequate pre-natal support. However, I acknowledge that the tenant’s heightened sensitivity has likely caused them stress and anxiety, leading them to view these matters as an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
On three occasions, a Housing Support worker visited the property and observed. On two occasions, other residents of the street were spoken to regarding the conduct of the occupants of [Tenancy address suppressed] and [Neighbouring address]. The series of photographs provided to the landlord, and produced, allegedly showing visitors to the neighbour’s property making threats to the tenant, do not, in fact, clearly show threats being made. It is also apparent that some of those being photographed were likely aware that they are being observed and photographed.
The landlord spoke with police on at least two occasions confirming dates and times of call outs and outcomes. While a landlord may issue breach or anti-social behaviour notices on offending tenants, they must first have reasonable grounds to do so.
I accept the landlord’s submission that, based on the evidence, which included advice from police, and their own investigation, the threshold for issuing notices or initiating proceedings to end the neighbouring tenant’s tenancy had not been met, and doing so was not justified at the time.
Based on the evidence, any conclusion by the landlord that both parties were likely equal protagonists appears to have been reasonable. Ultimately, the landlord has responsibly concluded that it was not conducive to the peace, comfort, or privacy of either party for them to continue residing in close proximity to one another. Ideally, this conclusion may have been reached sooner.
Although there were occasions when the neighbouring tenant likely interfered or allowed an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that this did not occur. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been wholly successful defending the claim, they do not seek name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds relating to the emotional health and wellbeing of the tenant to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767263 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767263 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions